PDA

View Full Version : So you say gun rights aren't civil rights? read this


morfeeis
10-24-2011, 12:42 AM
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

It's a long read but replace a few key words and you have a letter Calguns could have written

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was "well timed" in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of gun grabbers. For years now I have heard the word "Wait!" It rings in the ear of every gun owner with piercing familiarity. This "Wait" has almost always meant "Never." We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that "justice too long delayed is justice denied."

Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of gun grabbers to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs rob your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your gun owning brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million gun owning brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society. when you take a cross county drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "GFSZ" and "no guns"; when your first name becomes "Gun," your middle name becomes "nut" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when you are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a gun owner, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness"--then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience. You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 2010 upholding gun rights, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

as i read it and replaced a few words with, gun owner, nra and gun rights i felt like OC'ing.

Bert Gamble
10-24-2011, 1:55 AM
Haven't finished it yet, but it makes sense so far.

cmaynes
10-24-2011, 9:19 AM
I am going to say this is a really unsound manner to forward the fight-

that being said, we MUST FIGHT for our second amendment protected gun rights-

the reason I am against using MLK's speech as a basis for argument of that-

guns are property- if one has no money, and cannot afford a weapon, there is no given obligation for the person to demand a weapon. thus- it is not a natural right.

One could agrue that self preservation IS a natural right, because it is an internal, inalienable part of our person. A piece of property is not.

edward
10-24-2011, 9:26 AM
I am going to say this is a really unsound manner to forward the fight-

that being said, we MUST FIGHT for our second amendment protected gun rights-

the reason I am against using MLK's speech as a basis for argument of that-

guns are property- if one has no money, and cannot afford a weapon, there is no given obligation for the person to demand a weapon. thus- it is not a natural right.

One could agrue that self preservation IS a natural right, because it is an internal, inalienable part of our person. A piece of property is not.


Who ever said you had to buy your weapons? Nothing stopping you from making them. True the ones you buy will be substantially better made (usually) and many times safer and more effective, but you can build a 12 gauge shotgun from a pvc pipe, some various pieces of rubbish for the striking and trigger mechanism, and a piece of carved up would for the stock.

Property is indeed a natural right, and the concept of people owning things has been around longer than people buying things, me thinks (but probably not by much).

Mulay El Raisuli
10-24-2011, 9:31 AM
Me like.


The Raisuli

dantodd
10-24-2011, 10:10 AM
guns are property- if one has no money, and cannot afford a weapon, there is no given obligation for the person to demand a weapon. thus- it is not a natural right.

The financial ability to afford a right has no impact on the validity or importance of the right.

I have a right to not have my home taken away without due process. Does that mean I can demand a home from you if I cannot afford one of my own?

I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, if I cannot afford a Ferrari (which would make me very happy) can I demand you buy one for me?

No. I have the right to self-defense. It no more follows that I could demand a gun from you than any of the above. That in no way diminishes the importance or value of the right.

hakcenter
10-24-2011, 10:17 AM
[...]justice too long delayed is justice denied.

Amen brother.

yellowfin
10-24-2011, 10:37 AM
A critical component of arguing for gun rights as civil rights is the expectation, understanding, and cultural normative of rights, freedom, and governmental respect thereof. It is observable in NJ, MA, and NY that too many people are too used to endless meddling, bureaucracy, taxes, corruption, one sided elections, etc. that liberty is unfamiliar to them and thus hard to understand as a necessary fundamental assertion. Those used to the foul taste of injustice are not nearly as quick to want to spit it out.

cmaynes
10-24-2011, 10:43 AM
The financial ability to afford a right has no impact on the validity or importance of the right.

I have a right to not have my home taken away without due process. Does that mean I can demand a home from you if I cannot afford one of my own?

I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, if I cannot afford a Ferrari (which would make me very happy) can I demand you buy one for me?

No. I have the right to self-defense. It no more follows that I could demand a gun from you than any of the above. That in no way diminishes the importance or value of the right.

in the context of the King speech it bears no analog. Blacks were persecuted for who they were- not what they had. They couldn't change their color- it was a physical attribute.

Your pursuit of happiness is not tied to your stuff. And you would probably be quite unhappy with the insurance and maintenance expenses for that Ferrari....

The right of self defense has nothing to do with a tool. Sure- you can make a gun- but it still costs.... if there is an expense for the right- it is not a natural right.

jaymz
10-24-2011, 3:49 PM
The "right to bear arms" includes sticks and stones. Those can be had for free.

dantodd
10-24-2011, 5:38 PM
The right of self defense has nothing to do with a tool. Sure- you can make a gun- but it still costs.... if there is an expense for the right- it is not a natural right.

I'm really not sure if you are not understanding or if you are purposefully being obtuse.

Owning a gun and carrying it are the most common maner of exercising the right of self-defense, it is not requisite.

You can't be denied housing based on race. This doesn't mean you can demand the state provide you with housing comparable to someone else.

If you dont like the analogy to race then perhaps you might understand a comparison to religion. Even if you can't adford a rosary or a yarmulke do you somehow lose the right to practice as a catholic or Jew? Does having the right to freely practice your religion mean you can demand someone else buy you a church or a rosary?

Being guaranteed a right doesn't mean you are guaranteed the ability (pr momey) to exercise that right.

taperxz
10-24-2011, 5:52 PM
Well stated! Rights are not in the same category as the free food line.


I'm really not sure if you are not understanding or

if you are purposefully being obtuse.
Well stated and something that should always be understood. Rights are NOT the free food line.


Owning a gun and carrying it are the most common maner of exercising the right of self-defense, it is not requisite.

You can't be denied housing based on race. This doesn't mean you can demand the state provide you with housing comparable to someone else.

If you dont like the analogy to race then perhaps you might understand a comparison to religion. Even if you can't adford a rosary or a yarmulke do you somehow lose the right to practice as a catholic or Jew? Does having the right to freely practice your religion mean you can demand someone else buy you a church or a rosary?



Being guaranteed a right doesn't mean you are guaranteed the ability (pr momey) to exercise that right.